Yeah. In this case keyword "value" couldn't be typed. Ok. I slightly reworked my code see attached. Now it supports both typed and non-typed keywords. all in 120 lines (I am sure it could be made smaller by more effective mpl use).
It's only 120 (instead of 800) lines because you haven't implemented the features and workarounds that our library has. It's not like we've written ~600 lines of useless code that can just be eliminated..
My code works without *any* modifications on:
gcc 2.95.3 gcc 3.2.3 gcc 3.4.2 borland 5.6.4 cw 8.3 vc7.1(+/-stlport) vc6.5 (well this guy does require to change typename to BOOST_DEDUCED_TYPENAME in couple places, but that's it)
Again, you are lacking almost every feature we support.
Let's not make populist statements. I prefer discussion based on simple examples. "Here is what my solution can do, but you can't; Here is an interface I provide, here is what you do" e.t.c. In my opinion my solution only lacks some kind of default value support. While provide notion of typed keyword.
Furthermore, you have O(N) instantiations for every lookup, we have O(1).
I do not understand your code that well to contradict you, but I frankly very much doubt so.
Actually you seem to have an mpl::find_if<> instantiation for every one of those, so make that O(N^2).
I use mpl algorithm to speed up delepoment. I may've use my own list implementation, as you do. And I don't expect it to see signifant diffence in both complexity and performance.
It has to be coupled with the function.
?
The argument type requirements of a function is best coupled with the function, not the argument identifier.
I consider keyword as a part of function interface and not a standalone thing. keyword name could designate: object identifier, object property, IP service string and many other things. Why would I ever want to invent global shared name keyword and used it anytime I want parameter name amoung my function parameters??
Keywords needs to be reusable between different functions.
Why would I want this: In one place parameter abc is string in another is float? IMO it's very rarely make sence and I would use non-typed keyword in this case. In majority of the usage cases I would use typed one though.
Are you saying argument names are in general picked to unambiguously reflect their type?
void f(float size); void g(vec2d size);
Who decides if 'size' is non-typed or not? You are. If you believe that these two functions are related as well as
how f size parameter is related to g size? I would call one 'length' and second area. their parameters you may name them the same and share the keyword. It may happend that actual data type is different (or template parameter), then you would use typeless keyword: class A { A( std::string name, ... ) A( char const* name, ... ) A( const_string name, ... ) template<Params> A( Params const& ) ... }; new A( name = "abd" ); new A( name = std::string() ); new A( name = const_string() );
Who decides if 'size' has a default value, or is a required parameter? (I know your code doesn't support that, but still..).
I am not sure I understand what is you point here. All 'questions' have an answer - you - library user.
-- Daniel Wallin
Gennadiy.